- Published on
KembaraXtra – Case Law -George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd (1983) HL
This case examines the enforceability of exclusion clauses in contracts, specifically within the context of a sale of goods contract where inferior seeds led to crop failure.
I. The Facts:
The House of Lords held that it was not fair and reasonable to allow the defendants to rely on the exclusion clause. The court's reasoning centered on several key points:
The case pre-dates the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The court's assessment of reasonableness under the Sale of Goods Act focuses on the reliance on the exclusion clause after a breach has occurred. In contrast, section 11(1) of UCTA 1977 assesses the reasonableness of including the exclusion clause in the contract itself. This is a crucial distinction in understanding the application of reasonableness tests in contract law.
V. Study Points:
This case examines the enforceability of exclusion clauses in contracts, specifically within the context of a sale of goods contract where inferior seeds led to crop failure.
I. The Facts:
- Plaintiffs (Farmers): Ordered 30 lbs of Dutch winter white cabbage seeds (£201.60) from the defendants.
- Defendants (Seed Merchants): Supplied inferior autumn cabbage seeds.
- Result: Crop failure on 63 acres due to the incorrect seeds. Plaintiffs sued for compensation.
- Exclusion Clause: The defendants' conditions of sale contained a wide-ranging exclusion clause attempting to eliminate liability for any loss or damage arising from the use of supplied seeds, including consequential losses. This clause also excluded any express or implied conditions, statements, or warranties, statutory or otherwise, not explicitly stated in the conditions.
- Interpretation of the Exclusion Clause: Did the exclusion clause cover the specific loss suffered by the plaintiffs (crop failure due to incorrect seeds)? The House of Lords departed from previous overly strict interpretations of exclusion clauses, finding the clause did cover the situation. This contrasts with the approach in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd.
- Reasonableness under the Sale of Goods Act 1979: Even if the clause covered the loss, section 55(4) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 allows courts to refuse enforcement if reliance on the term is deemed "unfair and unreasonable." This is the central focus of the case.
The House of Lords held that it was not fair and reasonable to allow the defendants to rely on the exclusion clause. The court's reasoning centered on several key points:
- Industry Practice: Seed companies often negotiate damage payments exceeding the seed price in similar situations. This demonstrates that industry participants do not consider relying on such exclusion clauses reasonable.
- Insurability: Seed merchants can readily insure against this type of loss without significantly increasing seed prices. The ability to easily mitigate the risk weighs against the reasonableness of the clause.
The case pre-dates the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The court's assessment of reasonableness under the Sale of Goods Act focuses on the reliance on the exclusion clause after a breach has occurred. In contrast, section 11(1) of UCTA 1977 assesses the reasonableness of including the exclusion clause in the contract itself. This is a crucial distinction in understanding the application of reasonableness tests in contract law.
V. Study Points:
- Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses: Understand the principles of contractual interpretation, particularly concerning exclusion clauses and the shift away from strained constructions.
- Reasonableness Tests: Distinguish between the reasonableness tests under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (reliance) and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (inclusion). Consider how these tests impact the enforceability of exclusion clauses.
- Industry Practice and Insurability: Learn how evidence of industry practice and the ability to insure against a specific risk can inform the court's determination of reasonableness.
- Consequential Loss: Grasp the concept of consequential loss and how it applies to contract disputes.
0 Comments